My bed has more personal restraint devices than the Falcon.
Just sayin’.
It doesn’t have to be a massive advantage - a small one can still nudge things along over very large numbers of generations, in huge populations - it’s just statistics.
But that’s not really my point - it was just to object to the statement "that’s not how evolution works’ - because that is how evolution works - it’s just not established that it worked on those specific details in that way this time.
OK, super. Some people who read these studies draw the conclusion that “homophobes” are more likely to be secretly homosexual than people who aren’t “homophobes.” I see you share my opinion that that’s not a proper conclusion to draw.
“Naughty stuff” is just whatever a person thinks is a bad thing to do. I think it’s possible that some people get turned on by seeing naughty stuff and some people don’t. So, if gay porn hardens the dick of a “homophobe,” it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are gay, it could also mean that they enjoy watching naughty stuff. I think a “homophobe” is more likely than a “non-homophobe” to think gay sex is naughty.
The Wiki article only cites one study of penile plethysmography demonstrating that homophobics respond positively to homosexuality. The test subjects were all University of Georgia students ranging in age from 18-31, and they were selected out of a larger pool of psychological/sexual test takers. They were all shown hetero, gay, and lesbian videos for 4 minutes a shot, so to speak. There was significantly more reaction to the hetero and lesbo videos by all test subjects, and the homophobes’ responses to gay videos weren’t really that much higher than non-homophobes who didn’t get aroused. Reactions were measured by the millimeter, so in some cases, it was a dick that rose by a millimeter vs. dicks that didn’t lift at all.
These test subjects weren’t your typical man on the street; they were all students taking the test for partial credit in their Psych classes. Moreover, the study says there’s no real distinction between outspoken homophobes versus guys who just aren’t comfortable in a room full of gays. They were chosen because they had the highest homophobic ratings on sex questionnaires. They didn’t test Glenn Beck clones.
So, it’s not like it’s an open and shut case that homophobes are definitely homosexual. The article also points out that PP is not considered a reliable test in court, but may be considered for sentencing. It’s intended more for use in pedophile cases.
No. In fact, upon further reflection I was too generous earlier.
The logic he expects nature to follow is that since X (heterosexual desire) leads to Y (reproduction), then Z (disgust at homosexual behavior) leads to Y. That does not logically follow.
“X causes Y, therefore Z causes Y” is not valid. As that stands, that isn’t how evolution works, because that is a fallacy. “Eating meat sates hunger, therefore avoiding exercise sates hunger.” “Drinking water sates thirst, therefore air conditioning sates thirst.”
There are many ways in which homosexual behavior may actually aid in reproduction, either as a side-effect of a beneficial mating strategy or as part of a support network. If Z was proven to lead to Y, then yes, that would be how evolution works. When Z is proven to lead to Y, I will graciously retract that statement from the OP.
Guess I picked the wrong week to stop blowing my cat.
Oh thank fuck somebody knows what they’re talking about at last.
Quick question: those citing this study, how many refused to take part in it? If you don’t know this, then how can you rule out a confounding factor? Any homophobe who truly thought he was going to be subject to viewing gay porn would not take part in a study of this sort.
Further, just citing this paper is a little disingenuous, seeing as there has been substantial work in the area since. For instance, see Meier, B.P. et al. (2006) A secret attraction or defensive loathing? Homophobia, defense, and implicit cognition. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 377-394. Abstract:
“And that’s really what your daughter and I have in common. We both love cock. I like measuring them, she likes sucking them.”
I’m not disputing your assertion that there are no observations supporting the notion that aversion played a part here, I’m arguing that it is false to say “that’s not how evolution works”, in response to a statement that a heritable trait X brings about a greater rate of reproductive behaviour. That is one way in which evolution works. There just doesn’t seem to be any evidence that the asserted heritable trait exists in this case, or that it has the claimed behavioural effect.
If a trait is beneficial to survival or reproduction and is thus passed on, then yes, that is exactly how evolution works.
I’ll pretend I have magical editing powers and/or can go back in time:
Happy now?
It’s really not a question of me being happy. Sorry if you feel I have hounded you over a triviality of wording.
For someone who prides himself on his love of science you have a woefully poor ability to comprehend simple English and apply logic to what you are read.
Leaving aside the subject of whether or not someone finds homosexual sex repellent is nature or nurture, the logic is not what you claim it to be. The actual logic (looking at the male side of the equation) is as follows:
-
Evolution tends to favour traits that lead to successful reproduction.
-
Evolution has provided us with a very powerful drive to have sex.
-
It is possible to sate that drive by having sex with a man or woman.
-
Overall, the more times a man has sex with women the more likely he is to pass on his genes.
-
You can’t (as far as depositing semen is concerned) have sex with more than one person at a time.
-
Evidently, if you are having an instance of sex with a man you cannot be passing your seed to a woman.
-
More sex with men implies less sex with women.
-
Less sex with women means less chance of genes being passed on.
-
Anything that inhibits a men from doing something that results in them having less sex with women is likely to assist in passing on their genes.
-
Hence, if a man were to evolve a distaste for homosexual sex that, as a side effect, causes him to focus more on having sex with women then it will tend to aid him in passing on his genes.
Remember that most of the time these things are tendencies. It’s not a case of ‘every X must imply Y’. You could come up with all sorts of exceptions to any of the points above.
When considering evolution you are considering which traits tend to improve the chances for the organism to pass on its genes, not, usually, whether traits are an absolute necessity.
Of course, none of this addresses whether a distaste for homosexual sex is something inherited of something that is engendered by cultural influences. I cannot cite any work done on this matter and thus have to rely on anecdotal evidence gathered over the years. That, of course, means that the suggestion is (and was never intended to be) a scientific proof.
However, unless I’ve missed it, no one has provided any credible evidence that distaste for personally indulging in homosexual activity is culturally learned. Indeed, the very genesis of this thread came when out hot headed little friend of an OP, having spent most of the debate elsewhere yelling : ‘cite, cite, cite’ and any and every opportuinty, was invited to provide such evidence - at which point he abandoned the thread in great debates and came here to let off steam with a massive, ad hominem, rant.
This is absolutely correct.
Right down to it being based on imagination rather than evidence. That is the whole point of Great Debates, to put up ideas based on incomplete evidence and analysis and get opposing ideas and possibly evidence, confirmatory or otherwise.
Then to try and reach some consensus based on the best evidence and logic that comes out.
Not being around during the tens of millions of years that man has been evolving and not being able to extract such detailed evidence from the fossil record, the best we can do is imagine possibilities and see if they make sense.
Unfortunately, the OP for this thread, being something of a blowhard and unable to argue the point in a calm and rational manner, and disliking the idea proposed, leapt into the debate screaming ‘cite cite cite’ and asserting that I ‘didn’t understand how science worked’.
From that point on, any calm, rational, cooperative debate that could actually move the argument on - possibly showing my idea to be wrong in a sensible manner, has proved impossible.
It is by no means certain that my hypothesis is correct but, by the same token, I’ve seen little that actually demonstrates it is incorrect, or even particularly likely to be incorrect.
Or with nobody. Does the social stigma attached to masturbation stem from the same source as the alleged revulsion to homosexuality? I can’t see why it wouldn’t.
How about sex with monkeys and sheep?
It’s quite easy to see why there would be a social stigma attached to masturbation as it’s yet another case of people not minding their own damned business but feeling they have to take a view on other people’s sexual activity. :mad:
What’s a bit more puzzling is why there doesn’t seem to be any real biological factors inhibiting it since it can certainly lessen the urgency with which someone needs to find a partner.
Possibly any trait that stopped people from masturbating had more negative effects than positive (e.g. changes to their mental functioning such as indulging in more risky behaviour either in desperation to attract a mate or simply because they were sexually frustrated).
Or maybe masturbation is less of an impediment to heterosexual mating since it doesn’t completely remove the need to have sex with another person whereas settling down with a homosexual partner would.
No thanks, but you go ahead - once you have their informed consent.
Oh, they speak to me.
Of course, the beauty of evolutionary psychology is its cheerful acceptance of ideas sprinkled liberally with maybes.
Given the timescale over which the process takes place and the impossibility of obtaining any direct evidence for a great deal of what happened, maybes are pretty much what we are limited to.
We propose ideas and then look and see if they make sense on the basis of logic and what evidence we do have, either historical or from contemporary experimentation and observation.
Whenever you propose some possible evolutionary explanation you have to accept the fact that it could end up being shot down in flames.
However, if it’s going to be shot down in flames it needs to be done properly, not by a series of rants, ad hominems, and straw man arguments by people who dislike the idea for personal, non science based reasons, and will go to any lengths to discredit it.